Author
Topic: High ISO comparo: 5DIII vs. D800 (Read 42858 times)

There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics.

I don't understand this statement.

Why are people saying this? Seriously. They are both FF powerhouses with great ISO performance. Until real world reviews hit - we can't compare that ISO performance. So that aside, what are the big technical differences, aside from 4 vs. 6 fps burst rates, slightly different AF point systems, and $500.

I see these competing directly with each other, quite frankly. But then, maybe I'm missing something?

There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics.

I don't understand this statement.

Why are people saying this? Seriously. They are both FF powerhouses with great ISO performance. Until real world reviews hit - we can't compare that ISO performance. So that aside, what are the big technical differences, aside from 4 vs. 6 fps burst rates, slightly different AF point systems, and $500.

I see these competing directly with each other, quite frankly. But then, maybe I'm missing something?

I guess the markets they serve can be seen as subjective. However the D800 with its high resolution sensor really comes off as a studio powerhouse, while the 5D III, given the changes it has over the 5D II (which in the past would have also filled the role as a studio camera quite well, given it essentially held the place back then the D800 holds now) feels more like the cheaper, smaller alternative to the 1D X sports powerhouse, with one stop lower ISO and a few FPS less. But even so, none of that really matters. Technically speaking, all of the current-generation professional cameras on the market from both Canon and Nikon are superbly well suited to do any kind of photography one puts their mind to, so long as you know the gear and use it effectively. Damn the "ideal" markets...professional digital cameras are so capable these days bickering or complaining over which is better...well, we could all be out taking fantastic photographs right now with any one of the cameras we all currently own.

But lets just drop the second sentence of mine from your quote. There is STILL NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. ;-)

Thats all. I'm going to go out and find some birds to photograph with my trusty, very capable and excessively lacking in comparison to the D800 camera...the Canon 7D.

Tuggem

There is nothing to complain about here. The 5D III and the D800 serve different markets, different demographics.

I don't understand this statement.

Why are people saying this? Seriously. They are both FF powerhouses with great ISO performance. Until real world reviews hit - we can't compare that ISO performance. So that aside, what are the big technical differences, aside from 4 vs. 6 fps burst rates, slightly different AF point systems, and $500.

I see these competing directly with each other, quite frankly. But then, maybe I'm missing something?

The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO. At high ISO and in 1.2 crop mode it will probably be slightly behind 5D3 in Noise.So the only thing 5D3 has better than D800 is 1 FPS. The D800 has over 5D3 DR, IQ, high ISO noise (this is still not 100% confirmed but at the moment things points in this direction), resolution, built in flash.AF and meetering we dont know.FW features I guess goes in both directions but I find 5D3 multi exposures interesting. If there is any difference between 5D3 and D800 in HDR I would be interested to know if someone has the information.

ITakePhotos

The main issue to me is that the mark 3 is takes better pictures than the mark 2. I find the low ISO pictures are fine. If you comparing the high ISO 25600 shots to the mark 2 they are much better and the noise is more pleasant. The d800 25600 noise looks bad from what I have seen. Look at the final picture on this site:

The main issue to me is that the mark 3 is takes better pictures than the mark 2. I find the low ISO pictures are fine. If you comparing the high ISO 25600 shots to the mark 2 they are much better and the noise is more pleasant. The d800 25600 noise looks bad from what I have seen. Look at the final picture on this site:

The noise has a lot of random color in it like the mark 2 at high ISO. I think it will be nice to have more wiggle room at high ISO myself.

Up to ISO 6400, the 5DIII and D800 perform very closely. I was expecting The 5DIII to have a clear advantage based on the early jpeg samples, but in looking at the raw files, the D800 certainly doesn't embarrass itself. The 5DIII clearly pulls ahead by 12,800 and 25,600. The D800 looks terrible at 25,600, but I can't think of many situations where I'd need to shoot above ISO 12,800. That's why the D800's supposed advantage in DR is of particular interest to me. I say supposed, because I need to see more images from both bodies before drawing a final conclusion.

5DIII and D800 are completely different cameras. So why would you try to compare them?

Because I have both of them on pre-order, and whichever is the better camera will determine which system I go with.

Because I'm heavily invested in the Canon system, I want the 5DIII to be better, but it's hard to ignore the Nikon.

Because both the 5DIII and D800 represent the mid-range, prosumer DLSR in each company's respective lineup, both are priced similarly, and both will be compared to each other by potential consumers.

Because like it or not, they are not completely different cameras. They're competing in the same arena of the market for the same consumer dollars. The 5DII and D700 were different tools, with the former aimed at resolution and the latter at speed, but people inevitably shopped them against each other.

Quote

As long digital cameras are being sold there always has been the trade of between amount of pixels and amount of noise. Also you can not expect large files and high fps together. All this is getting better with every camera but the difference remains. Just get what you need most.

The 1Ds, 1DsII, and 1DsIII all offered an outstanding tradeoff between resolution, speed, and noise. On paper, the 5DIII continues this tradition. The problem is that the competition has been making revolutionary strides, and the D800 sacrifices very little in speed and noise compared to the 5DIII despite its massive resolution advantage. Canon used to be the class of the field in this regard, and Nikon was an absolute joke just five years ago. Unfortunately for Canon shooters like me, the tables are turning.

Before the sample images from each body started floating around, I hoped the noise and DR of the 5DIII would have been improved enough to make the D800 less appealing. It doesn't look like Canon has succeeded.

Again, this is still merely speculation and I'll reserve final judgement until I can test both cameras out in the field. That said, I'm still pulling for Canon.

you could just use both, I used both Nikon and canon for ages then just got sick of different batteries , doubling up on alot of gear so sold off all my nikon gear mainly because I was so heavily invested in canon too and the 5Dmk2s give great IQ also the whole D800 being continually delayed annoyed the hell out of me . I'll be interested to hear your take when you get them both though, I am sure both will be great

The D800 does 5 FPS in 1.2 crop mode and will still outperform 5D3 in IQ at low ISO

Well we still don't know this for sure

Oh yes "we" do.

I've done many tests on the low ISO RAW files from D800 and the 5D3, and I've seen that the D800 (and especially the D800E) completely smokes the 5D3, when it comes to low ISO IQ and dynamic range.

It is the new king of dynamic range and landscape photography for sure.

There are still thousands of nay-sayers at the Canon side, but everyone will know the truth by next month.

What, exactly, is the definition of "completely smokes"? (A NON-SUBJECTIVE definition fitting for the context is obviously preferable, I'd rather not have to debate the subjective nature of your definition, and the subjective nature of the definitions definition, etc. etc. ad inf.)

But seriously, where does that kind of crazy talk come from? Unless you have a critical need to photograph the sun itself while concurrently demonstrating that the vastness of space is black, lightless and lifeless, or are photographing frogs in the dead of night illuminated with nothing but starlight, the capabilities of neither of these cameras is actually "needed". And if you do have an ever-present critical need to do one of the above two tasks, your probably a scientist of some kind...and as a scientist, you'll probably find that using a scientific device that is properly designed to meet your specific and rather niche needs will do the job far better than either the D800 or 5D III (or any other DSLR camera on the market as of today.)

Excluding the excessive probing and augmentation of the bottom 3 bits of dynamic range from modern cameras that multiplies them 64 times beyond their normal state, does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be incapable of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at more than acceptable quality? (Acceptable, not "perfect"...were not looking for heart-attack inducing perfection here...and if you are...you probably need to multiply your budget by an order of magnitude and look elsewhere.) Does anyone REALLY think you couldn't print the same photo from both cameras at a standard print size? (Lets use 8x10 or 8.5x11, since thats about good enough for a magazine centerfold or the average photographic portfolio, a happy medium between your run of the mill 4x6 and a wall-hanging size of say 13x19/A3 or 17x22/A2.) On a normalized basis, for the very, very vast majority of photographers, these two cameras are so much more than anyone actually needs its kind of humorous. Were not all shooting this:

From looking at quite a bit of samples from both cameras, I think it's too early to tell anything concrete about ISO performance. There is a huge variance between different sources. Some images look fantastic while other look pretty poor. From both cameras. I think that since we are dealing with pre-production bodies, there are quite a lot of differences between copies. I mean, on Canon's site, for example, there are images that were taken as far back as six months ago and who knows how up to date that camera was at the time.

Not that a stamp of approval really matters in the end, but if anyone needs or wants to know which is better, I think it's best to wait for a head to head comparison by done on the same conditions.

does anyone seriously think the 5D III is actually going to be incapable of capturing the exact same photos as the D800 at more than acceptable quality?

That's a great point, and the obvious answer is of course not. Nine times out of 10, the limiting factor with either body is going to be the skill of the photographer.

Even so, I'm looking at this more as a long-term investment. I'm already invested in the Canon system, but the competition has been making incredible strides the last 3-4 years. Back when I started shooting digital in the early '00s, if you showed up with Nikon gear at a gig, all the Canon-toting photogs laughed their asses off at you. Nikon was that bad, and lost a TON of market share from loyal Nikon photogs switching over the Canon. No working pro in their right mind shot with anything other than Canon, and the day that Nikon would catch up, let alone surpass Canon, was inconceivable. The catchphrase "Digital revolutionized photography, Canon revolutionized digital" was 100% fact and 0% marketing BS.

These days, for a Canon shooter, the marginal improvements the company has made in its crop and full-frame models the last 1-2 generations might make you think that you're backing the wrong horse. Don't get me wrong. Canon still makes a great product, and I think it still has a better overall system than Nikon. The question is whether Nikon is going to continue pulling away, or if Canon is going to reclaim its digital supremacy.